About a year ago well known artist Stephen Sollins exhibited his newest body of work in the show “Domestic Scenes.”

This work came out of his previous practice which explored the emotional roles and systems that are manifested within everyday objects.  With “Domestic Scenes” Stephen deconstructed found everyday embroideries to create modernist geometric drawings.  By unthreading the original embroidery and re-using that thread to create his patterns he erases the hand of the original artist and works towards erasing his own.  Yet he allows the original embroidery to dictate his modernist shapes by using the same amount of stitches per color as in the original.

I find the work quite lovely and am in support of reusing and recycling materials as Stephen re- appropriates these linens.  However, many crafters and needle pointers were outraged by his “disrespect” and destroying of the original work.

The original press release states:

By juxtaposing the new, controlled composition and the eerie, sentimental remains of the original textile design, Sollins eulogizes the anonymous craftsperson while elevating commonplace linens to fine art.

In many ways I find this statement both eloquent and concise, however, I then question why, according to this press release, which was written by a man, does it take a male artist destroying the feminine hand and re-creating it into a modernist image to elevate linens to fine art.

Originally seeing the work I was simply compelled by the beauty of the “kitchy”ghost like image of the original pattern in contrast to the bright and geometric minimalism.  This created a complex juxtaposition of an everyday feminine object and practice against an elevated and intellectual male dominated art form.  And I still respond very positively to the visual and conceptual experience I have through the work.

But after reading Stephen and his gallerist’s arguments and defenses against their attackers, I am not sure what to think.  In defending his work Stephen’s words often belittle the act of embroidery and its role in female history- dismissing the importance of the embroideries due to there mass marketed patterns- implying that the individual hand of the maker not be important because the image is not original.

Go here to read an article on the controversy.

I do not have a clear conclusion but I find the arguments and concerns brought up through this controversial body of work quite compelling and feel they deserve much more conversation. What do you think about Stephens controversial threads?